Of course the paper this morning contained the usual happy crap about celebrating FREEDOM as though we had either more of it or a better kind than Canada or most of Europe who have embraced the principles of Democracy and the rights of Man we seem to reject every Sunday as we yearn for the Divine right of Government. What the day is about is political independence and independence from a government that denied us the right to Parliamentary representation it was legally obligated to provide while requiring us to identify the King's right to be king with a state church. It was about our right to fair representation as citizens, as equal participants in government regardless of wealth and importance and heredity and not about a tea tax.
As you watch the sound and fury of the fireworks, remember that the people selling themselves as patriots, the people talking about freedom in saccharine tones, really mean control by a powerful aristocracy allied with a narrow, sectarian interpretation of a certain religion.
"Blessed is the nation whose god is the Lord" begins the full page full color newspaper insert payed for by the Hobby Lobby. It leaves off the next stanza: "the people he chose for his inheritance" which of course in that context means the Jews. It also mistranslates אשר־יהוה, asher-Yaveh as the lord so those who think 'Jesus is Lord' will think it means them. The arrogance and the dishonesty would be amusing if the intent were not so insidious, because Our friends at Hobby Lobby, glowing like the face of Moses in their victory over secular law, have asserted their commitment to and aspiration toward a government Dei Gratia. They assert their version of the Bible as the best source of normative morality.
The flag-bedecked page is packed with references to Supreme Court decisions from the 1830's supporting the public schools as the place to pray and teach Christianity and out-of-context quotes from the very anti-religious founding fathers like James Madison and Thomas Jefferson about the Christian Bible being the basis of all true morality. (No mention of course of the Bible backed, God tolerated institutions of wife beating and slavery and rape and genocide and banishment of non-Jewish people from holy land.)
No religion is about freedom, they are all about orthodoxy and uniformity of belief to the exclusion of other ideas and practices. Freedom of worship is not freedom to enforce religious orthodoxy or religious law on others. No religion is about free choice, Democracy or the inherent rights of man. No one in America has claimed the right to dictate your thoughts about divinity but religious organizations. Your prayers, your right to congregate and worship are guaranteed against the influence of the Hobby Lobby and our constitution forbids our government to do what they insist is the right thing to do: Establish and enforce some form of Christian doctrine as the law of the land. If this be freedom, then freedom is slavery and the American Revolution against a divinely inspired Christian king we pretend to celebrate today was not only fought in vain, but was blasphemy and an unholy act.
Showing posts with label freedom. Show all posts
Showing posts with label freedom. Show all posts
Friday, July 04, 2014
Thursday, April 11, 2013
Ban it
Well as long as we're advocating that anything that might somehow be deleterious to society or dangerous to school children be banned, let's ban the Bible. I mean it. I can't think of anything that's been behind more ugly things for more time and we just can't trust people not to use it badly. Oppression, torture, privation, sexual perversion, conquest, slavery issue forth from it like the stink from a sewer and Bible mongers have as James Madison said " been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority." Even when that dishonest and sordid concretion of legend, lie and political polemic isn't a direct source of evil, the many malicious memes it's fostered and nurtured have been an endless source of obstruction, bigotry, hatred and dehumanization -- an ever-ready tool for the greedy and nasty of the world to divide us into warring tribes. Ban it!
Take Representative Joe Barton (Republican of course, and Texas unsurprisingly.) To prove that all the shit we've been belching into the air since the Industrial Revolution and Population explosion began, has had no effect on the very demonstrable warming of the planet, he cites and without apparent shame -- the Bible Flood Story. Why? For no other reason than that he hopes to profit from an oil pipeline. It's only a tiny example. There are more than anyone can count in a lifetime. Reasons why I can't live here or eat there. Why I can't serve on a jury, can't run for office. Why this one can't be a citizen, why this one can't marry that one, why this family can't own its children, why that one can't dance on Sunday or read that book or have this job: that obscene bolus of priestly excreta, reeking of blood and death and corruption.
Look, like all the foundational stories of the Bible, the Flood never happened. It never could have happened, it never will happen and if it had occurred the evidence would be absolutely everywhere. It isn't anywhere. It's a story to scare children and their childish parents and it directly contradicts an endless pile of evidence. As a Judaised plagery of an older Babylonian tale, it even contradicts itself as a combination of two stories with Gods of two different names, two different dialects, two different numbers of animals and different periods of rain interleaved almost line by line. Your Sunday School teacher lied. The entire Bible floats on lies as its tiny universe floats on a primal ocean. Billions of species on a boat that somehow got from a Turkish mountain to populate the Earth in a few years? Why are there no Kangaroos in The Middle East?
What kind of good book is the eternal and mortal enemy of math, logic, science, biology, chemistry, genetics, history and human dignity? You know the answer. You know why it was used to ban telescopes and microscopes and the scientific method - why it was used to ban Democracy, why it was used to murder Jews and Arians and Albigensians and Protestants and Gnostics and Muslims and virtually anyone who would not submit to that accursed thing.
I can't think of one positive development in human history that has not been suppressed or thwarted by Bible wielding barbarians; things like freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of association, freedom of inquiry, freedom to elect governments, freedom of information -- even the very freedom to exist. We've had nearly an eternity and nearly an infinity of examples showing that mankind can't be trusted to produce or safely use such weapons of mass seduction. Ban it.
The universe in which the disparate stories from various sources have been set is very tiny to the modern eye. It's a flat universe which can be observed directly from 'above' and it directly contradicts the real universe to an extent that defies analogy. Stories are made up from things that may have happened at different times and in different places or are fanciful interpretations of random events or fictional accounts -- when they have any relationship to history at all, but as long as this intellectual assault weapon exists it will be used; we will be assaulted with it by people of evil and perverted and tyrannical intent.
Enough of this. The Bible may contain some embedded cysts or pockets of wisdom, some moments of rapture that delight when taken out of context but it's purpose is to sell authority, justify authority, promote authority independent of the will of free people and is not only offensive to anyone with any concern for the history it traduces, it's a weapon that can, has and always will be used in the assault on our freedom and on truth and on all that has raised us up from smelly, lousy, terrified and diseased apes squatting in the dirt eating carrion.
Take Representative Joe Barton (Republican of course, and Texas unsurprisingly.) To prove that all the shit we've been belching into the air since the Industrial Revolution and Population explosion began, has had no effect on the very demonstrable warming of the planet, he cites and without apparent shame -- the Bible Flood Story. Why? For no other reason than that he hopes to profit from an oil pipeline. It's only a tiny example. There are more than anyone can count in a lifetime. Reasons why I can't live here or eat there. Why I can't serve on a jury, can't run for office. Why this one can't be a citizen, why this one can't marry that one, why this family can't own its children, why that one can't dance on Sunday or read that book or have this job: that obscene bolus of priestly excreta, reeking of blood and death and corruption.
Look, like all the foundational stories of the Bible, the Flood never happened. It never could have happened, it never will happen and if it had occurred the evidence would be absolutely everywhere. It isn't anywhere. It's a story to scare children and their childish parents and it directly contradicts an endless pile of evidence. As a Judaised plagery of an older Babylonian tale, it even contradicts itself as a combination of two stories with Gods of two different names, two different dialects, two different numbers of animals and different periods of rain interleaved almost line by line. Your Sunday School teacher lied. The entire Bible floats on lies as its tiny universe floats on a primal ocean. Billions of species on a boat that somehow got from a Turkish mountain to populate the Earth in a few years? Why are there no Kangaroos in The Middle East?
What kind of good book is the eternal and mortal enemy of math, logic, science, biology, chemistry, genetics, history and human dignity? You know the answer. You know why it was used to ban telescopes and microscopes and the scientific method - why it was used to ban Democracy, why it was used to murder Jews and Arians and Albigensians and Protestants and Gnostics and Muslims and virtually anyone who would not submit to that accursed thing.
I can't think of one positive development in human history that has not been suppressed or thwarted by Bible wielding barbarians; things like freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of association, freedom of inquiry, freedom to elect governments, freedom of information -- even the very freedom to exist. We've had nearly an eternity and nearly an infinity of examples showing that mankind can't be trusted to produce or safely use such weapons of mass seduction. Ban it.
The universe in which the disparate stories from various sources have been set is very tiny to the modern eye. It's a flat universe which can be observed directly from 'above' and it directly contradicts the real universe to an extent that defies analogy. Stories are made up from things that may have happened at different times and in different places or are fanciful interpretations of random events or fictional accounts -- when they have any relationship to history at all, but as long as this intellectual assault weapon exists it will be used; we will be assaulted with it by people of evil and perverted and tyrannical intent.
Enough of this. The Bible may contain some embedded cysts or pockets of wisdom, some moments of rapture that delight when taken out of context but it's purpose is to sell authority, justify authority, promote authority independent of the will of free people and is not only offensive to anyone with any concern for the history it traduces, it's a weapon that can, has and always will be used in the assault on our freedom and on truth and on all that has raised us up from smelly, lousy, terrified and diseased apes squatting in the dirt eating carrion.
Friday, June 03, 2011
You can't have that!
"A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many bad measures."
-Daniel Webster-
Every morning's bag of e-mail brings at least one call to arms and sometimes many more. I'm getting tired of the blaring slughorns and fraying pennants, whether or not I support the basic premises.
Take private cars and fuel economy. I got one from NRDC today; that's the Natural Resources Defense Council, a group whose purposes seem reasonably clear from the title. The headline purports to tell me how much I would save by switching to a 60MPG vehicle - one of those hermetically sealed capsules from which I could observe the glory of the ocean and dunes and the beauty of vast natural scenes through tinted windows, darkly. Think of how much money I would save and of course think of how I, an aging superhero, could "go green" and "save the planet!"
Numbers don't lie, people do and when I plugged in my actual figures, it told me I would save about 333 dollars a year. No I wouldn't and whoop-di-do if I did. First of all the cost to all things natural and to me of building another vehicle isn't factored in at all here nor is the possible 60+ year lifespan of my car Vs that of a Japanese post-modernist disposable gumdrop. I 'd have to sell the glorious red 190Mph convertible that may be worth more in my grandchildren's senescence than it is now and buy a rolling toad with those tiny wheels, primitive suspension and a ton of batteries ( which will have to be replaced at a high cost not added to the alleged savings.) Is life and the joy of living worth 300 bucks a year? I could save a fortune by selling the house and moving into a trailer in Central Florida after all. I could choose for myself.
The Modernist movement of the last century brought us the idea of minimalism in architecture; the idea that our homes were machines for living and that living in them made us better and more efficient -- efficient being the key word, I think. The stripped down, unornamented minimalized life of maximum efficiency isn't all that compatible with what most of us would consider a life. Integrating man into the means of production, minimizing private space and emphasizing public and communal areas and mechanizing the whole experience of life doesn't, in the mind of this inefficient life form, make for an existence I would enjoy, to say the least. It hardly allows for experiencing the intense joy of being alive on a minute to minute basis, unless you consider a brief two week packaged vacation from the cubicle to be living.
I don't know about you, but I'm not a machine or a piece of production equipment. My house is not a machine and my preferred transportation would not resemble one of those pneumatic capsules you put your checks and deposit slips into at the drive-through bank.
Send a message urging the government to strengthen pollution and fuel efficiency standards to deliver 60 miles per gallon by 2025!
screams the headline. It doesn't mention that the glut of huge, heavy, clumsy, dangerous hunks of iron now clogging the curves on our roads was the direct result of that same message sent back in the 1970's as a hysterical response to the Arab Oil Embargo. That was a perfect example of the "here's a problem - let's pass a bill" kind of knee-jerk politics that's clogged our arteries for decades and no, we can't hardly pin that on the Republicans.
You can get a 60 mpg vehicle right now if you want it - a 100 mpg vehicle that costs a thousand dollars. They sell them in several places around this town, you just have to sweat in the heat and get wet when it rains, and you can't go very fast but hey, it's all about efficiency and going green, right? Many people choose that, many enjoy it -- including me, for what it's worth, but it's a choice, not the result of a Federal mandate. Sometimes you feel like a truck, sometimes you don't -- you consider the need and the budget and you makes your choice. But is it "saving the planet" to drive one of those terrifying "smart Cars?" Did anyone stop to notice that the US military is the largest single fossil fuel burner in our country? Is our problem really cars or is it how much we drive. How much of the passion is really that same stale neo-Luddism that nestled into Liberal thought back in the 60's when it was oh so hip to destroy cars in the name of whatever you call it?
Sure Americans waste untold resources driving to work, waste a fortune to drive fashionably military-looking "safety" vehicles that cause 4 times more accidents and have to crawl through maneuvers like airships, but is the answer to regiment us, to furnish us with little steel boxes and proclaim "only this and nothing more?" Maybe it's time to let Dracula out of his coffin and raise the fuel tax! (gasp) Let people work out their personal mathematics by themselves - maybe move closer to work, maybe use a small car to drive to the train station, maybe buy a scooter. Raise the taxes steadily and put the money into high speed rail and local light rail. Eventually our obscene sprawl will contract and the mall to mall crawl may become a trip into town or down the block and people can make choices that suit them and their needs - you know, like free people in a free country. We don't trust you to use that ( insert anything here) wisely, we don't think you need it and therefore, you can't have it. It's the recipe for bad measures indeed.
Sure, I'm strongly convinced that something needs to be done, but I'm strongly convinced that it doesn't require us to become soulless gears and cams in the efficient, regulated machine of commerce and the State, if there's any difference between the two.
-Daniel Webster-
Every morning's bag of e-mail brings at least one call to arms and sometimes many more. I'm getting tired of the blaring slughorns and fraying pennants, whether or not I support the basic premises.
Take private cars and fuel economy. I got one from NRDC today; that's the Natural Resources Defense Council, a group whose purposes seem reasonably clear from the title. The headline purports to tell me how much I would save by switching to a 60MPG vehicle - one of those hermetically sealed capsules from which I could observe the glory of the ocean and dunes and the beauty of vast natural scenes through tinted windows, darkly. Think of how much money I would save and of course think of how I, an aging superhero, could "go green" and "save the planet!"
Numbers don't lie, people do and when I plugged in my actual figures, it told me I would save about 333 dollars a year. No I wouldn't and whoop-di-do if I did. First of all the cost to all things natural and to me of building another vehicle isn't factored in at all here nor is the possible 60+ year lifespan of my car Vs that of a Japanese post-modernist disposable gumdrop. I 'd have to sell the glorious red 190Mph convertible that may be worth more in my grandchildren's senescence than it is now and buy a rolling toad with those tiny wheels, primitive suspension and a ton of batteries ( which will have to be replaced at a high cost not added to the alleged savings.) Is life and the joy of living worth 300 bucks a year? I could save a fortune by selling the house and moving into a trailer in Central Florida after all. I could choose for myself.
The Modernist movement of the last century brought us the idea of minimalism in architecture; the idea that our homes were machines for living and that living in them made us better and more efficient -- efficient being the key word, I think. The stripped down, unornamented minimalized life of maximum efficiency isn't all that compatible with what most of us would consider a life. Integrating man into the means of production, minimizing private space and emphasizing public and communal areas and mechanizing the whole experience of life doesn't, in the mind of this inefficient life form, make for an existence I would enjoy, to say the least. It hardly allows for experiencing the intense joy of being alive on a minute to minute basis, unless you consider a brief two week packaged vacation from the cubicle to be living.
I don't know about you, but I'm not a machine or a piece of production equipment. My house is not a machine and my preferred transportation would not resemble one of those pneumatic capsules you put your checks and deposit slips into at the drive-through bank.
Send a message urging the government to strengthen pollution and fuel efficiency standards to deliver 60 miles per gallon by 2025!
screams the headline. It doesn't mention that the glut of huge, heavy, clumsy, dangerous hunks of iron now clogging the curves on our roads was the direct result of that same message sent back in the 1970's as a hysterical response to the Arab Oil Embargo. That was a perfect example of the "here's a problem - let's pass a bill" kind of knee-jerk politics that's clogged our arteries for decades and no, we can't hardly pin that on the Republicans.
You can get a 60 mpg vehicle right now if you want it - a 100 mpg vehicle that costs a thousand dollars. They sell them in several places around this town, you just have to sweat in the heat and get wet when it rains, and you can't go very fast but hey, it's all about efficiency and going green, right? Many people choose that, many enjoy it -- including me, for what it's worth, but it's a choice, not the result of a Federal mandate. Sometimes you feel like a truck, sometimes you don't -- you consider the need and the budget and you makes your choice. But is it "saving the planet" to drive one of those terrifying "smart Cars?" Did anyone stop to notice that the US military is the largest single fossil fuel burner in our country? Is our problem really cars or is it how much we drive. How much of the passion is really that same stale neo-Luddism that nestled into Liberal thought back in the 60's when it was oh so hip to destroy cars in the name of whatever you call it?
Sure Americans waste untold resources driving to work, waste a fortune to drive fashionably military-looking "safety" vehicles that cause 4 times more accidents and have to crawl through maneuvers like airships, but is the answer to regiment us, to furnish us with little steel boxes and proclaim "only this and nothing more?" Maybe it's time to let Dracula out of his coffin and raise the fuel tax! (gasp) Let people work out their personal mathematics by themselves - maybe move closer to work, maybe use a small car to drive to the train station, maybe buy a scooter. Raise the taxes steadily and put the money into high speed rail and local light rail. Eventually our obscene sprawl will contract and the mall to mall crawl may become a trip into town or down the block and people can make choices that suit them and their needs - you know, like free people in a free country. We don't trust you to use that ( insert anything here) wisely, we don't think you need it and therefore, you can't have it. It's the recipe for bad measures indeed.
Sure, I'm strongly convinced that something needs to be done, but I'm strongly convinced that it doesn't require us to become soulless gears and cams in the efficient, regulated machine of commerce and the State, if there's any difference between the two.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
